LuxAeterna

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LuxAeterna

  1. The Aesthetic Qualifier

    It has often been said Rand's aesthetic theory is her least developed. Admittedly, I would have to agree. I am looking for the clearest definition of what qualifies art to be art. From there, I question what makes good art? As a self-proclaimed aesthete, my personal view is that art concretizes the artists' perception of reality (or lack thereof), and that the qualifier is that the artist simply presents some view of reality, no matter how skewed or wrong it may be. Good art would then be something that satisfies one's personal view of reality. For Objectivists, this art would be realistic, heroic, and attainable. Bad art would defy those principles. Is this view acceptable? Is it fundamentally lacking? Feedback is welcomed and elicited.
  2. The Aesthetic Qualifier

    Alright. I am sorry not to have made the distinction that I am a student of Objectivism. I suppose I will have to read the full works of Rand and digest them before I can see whether I have any dissenting opinions. For now, I'll just observe until I have something to offer. I felt sort of obligated to post when I joined, honestly, and had an interest in her esthetics, which I won't be able to read for a while, so I decided to post. I've already read AS, TF, and Anthem, though so I'm not a complete n00b.
  3. The Aesthetic Qualifier

    I have not read the Romantic Manifesto or The Art of Fiction as I have chosen first to read The Virtue of Selfishness. As such, I was simply looking for a succinct and simple definition of what posters on this forum believe qualifies as art. I understand and agree that art is a "selective re-creation of an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Rand, however, is not infallible, nor unable to be collaborated upon, so I'd like to see what other Objectivists see art as. I don't limit art to that which pleases my view of existence -- that is what makes good art. But consider this: if some painter lay out a bleak and dreary view of existence in a novel, but wrote it with good style (such as Victor Hugo), I would consider it okay art. This works well for novels and pretty well for fine arts, but what about music? I cannot fathom why I enjoy the music I listen to. I completely disagree with the lyrics, and even resent that I enjoy the music sometimes because the message is so vile. The music is often dissonant, not terribly difficult to play, and unrhythmical. But it continues to satisfy some audio-cognitive function inside of me. I cannot discern why. Are some preferences simply innate and specific to each person?
  4. Standing Invitation

    I live in New York and am coming to Philly for a concert next Friday. If you have any suggestions for places to go and things to do, it would be very much appreciated. If you'd like to meet, I wouldn't mind either, I'd with with an old friend from camp. I'm 17 and hopefully will be driving there, depending on whether my parents deem I am capable of making a long highway trip.